Correct place name for Modern Mumbai

Question

I have an individual who died in Bombay in 1831 and I'm trying to find the correct historical place name. I know that it was at the time of the rule of the East India Company, but I'm still not sure what is the correct format.

Edited to add: I’m specifically asking for the location information that should properly follow “Bombay.” Is there something that should be there besides just “India.”?

Answer 1

It was known as Bombay in 1831. It is now known as Mumbai. I always enter the place name as it was known as at the time.

Comments

I wasn’t clear. I have put Bombay already. What comes after?

---

Oh! Sorry. I put the Presidency, which for Bombay would be Bengal. It is Wikitree policy to use the historical place name in the location field and use the modern place name in the biography.

---

Not a problem. 

So the correct format for 1830 would be "Bombay, Presidency, India"? or "Bombay, Bengal, India"?

It's tricky, because the first half of the 1800s was when so much expansion happened.

---

My apologies once again. Bombay was in the Bombay presidency and not Bengal.  The correct was to enter it would be Bombay, Bombay Presidency, India.

Presidencies were the administrative districts of India at the time. See this article which explains about Presidencies.

https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Presidencies

---

Bombay Presidency was 1843–1936, so it would be wrong for 1831.

---

I thought it might be too soon for Presidency, but it was definitely the time of the Company Raj.

So that takes us back to the original question.

---

This is where I was going around in circles yesterday.

The Wikipedia article says right at the top that the Presidency started in 1843; however, in the Expansion section of that same article, it talks about the Presidency in 1803.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Presidency#Expansion

---

No, the Wikipedia article is worded badly and misleading. Bombay and Sind was 1843–1936. Bombay was in the Bombay Presidency in 1830. If you scroll further down the Wikipedia page just a little more you will see 

Presidency of Bombay
1662–1947

---

Thank you Valmay, for being so patient with me. 

So if I put, "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, India" for 1830, then that would be correct, yes?

---

I dunno.  My Indian relatives have always just used Bombay, India.  They've never mentioned a state, or a Presidency, or anything like that.  Same with the rellies from Madras.  It's always just been Madras, India.

---

Yes, that is correct. India place names can be confusing. Spellings of some even more so!

---

Re Eric's question: sorry Valmay, but I don't think WikiTree policy says this. The relevant policy is

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Location_Fields#Location_Field_Style_Guide

It consistently says "use their conventions instead of ours" and "We aim to use the name that was used in that place, at the time of the event you're recording." It does not distinguish between location fields and biography text.

So the place name at the time should be used in the biography as well as the field. But it would be fine to say "died in Bombay (now Mumbai)" in the biography.

I am assuming here that the individual Katrina mentioned was English and would have used the name Bombay. The answer might be different if the subject was an Indian person whose language used the name Mumbai or similar at the time. In considering "use their conventions instead of ours", "they" should mean the person and community we are documenting, not officialdom or empire.